1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) loaned KRW 30,10,000 to the Defendant on June 30, 2003, setting the lending period of 24 months, agreed interest rate of 24.5%, and delay compensation rate of 28% per annum.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan claims”) B.

On May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claims under the Asset Transfer Contracts and Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and at that time notified the Defendant of the fact of transfer of the said claim under the said Act as a certificate of content.

C. As of May 1, 2008, the principal amount of the instant loan claim is KRW 3,004,737, and interest and interest interest in arrears is KRW 2,881,96.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-3 and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum with respect to the Plaintiff’s total sum of KRW 5,886,733 (3,004,737 + 2,881,996) and the principal amount of KRW 3,004,737 from May 2, 2008 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant asserts that the defendant's defense was extinguished by the lapse of the five-year statute of limitations as commercial claims.

On June 30, 2005, the repayment period of the loan claim of this case was the date of the expiration of the lending period, and on July 17, 2008, the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case and suspended the extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance, which concluded as a result of the reduction of claim by this court, is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

(However, the Disposition 1 of the first instance judgment was changed by the reduction of the claim in this court as shown in Paragraph 3 of the Disposition).